Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31808067›Full record

SynthesisAging clinical and experimental research2020

A systematic review of the provision and efficacy of patient and carer information and support (PCIS) interventions for patients with dementia and their informal carers.

L Miles, B M S McCausland, H P Patel, J Amin, V C Osman-Hicks

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

L MilesFaculty of Medicine (Clinical and Experimental Sciences), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
B M S McCauslandFaculty of Medicine (Clinical and Experimental Sciences), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. bmccausland@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9096-3289
H P PatelAcademic Geriatric Medicine, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
J AminFaculty of Medicine (Clinical and Experimental Sciences), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
V C Osman-HicksFaculty of Medicine (Clinical and Experimental Sciences), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBSouthern Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1015Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe NHS dementia strategy identifies patient and carer information and support (PCIS) as a core component of gold-standard dementia care. This is the first systematic review of PCIS, performed to analyse the literature and evidence for these interventions.

aimsTo systematically review literature evaluating the effectiveness of the provision of PCIS for people with dementia and their informal carers, in inpatient and outpatient settings.

methodsSearches of four online biomedical databases, accessed in September 2018. Studies were selected if they were: relating to people with dementia or their informal carers, based in inpatient or outpatient settings, published in English-language peer-reviewed journals no earlier than the year 2000 and assessed dementia-related information or social support interventions, by measuring qualitative or quantitative carer or patient-reported outcomes. Standardised data extraction and quality appraisal forms were used.

results7 of 43 full-text papers analysed were eligible for analysis. 3 papers were different arms of one original study. Trends were present in the quantitative results towards reduced patient and carer depression and anxiety and the themes in the qualitative analysis were in favour of the intervention.

conclusionsThe studies analysed were too heterogeneous in design, population and outcomes measured to make a conclusive opinion about the efficacy of these interventions. It is surprising that for such a common condition, a gold-standard evidence-based intervention and standardised delivery for provision of PCIS for people living with dementia in the UK does not exist. Further research is therefore vital.

Indexed as

CaregiversDementiaAnxietyHumansCare-giversDementiaInformationInpatientOutpatientSocial support

Identifiers

PMID31808067
PMCPMC7680317
OpenAlexW2992350828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.